sallykeller-51142
Joined Apr 2020
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings49
sallykeller-51142's rating
Reviews36
sallykeller-51142's rating
You at least have a plausible motive for putting your life on the line for a small fortune. The two girls have a profitable gig before taking on the mafia, why and how would two blue collar office girls do it?
Little explanation is given, but we are sent on a lesson to explain how some type of social worker in the form of a court-appointed legal guardian turns into a girlpower lesbian-hitman able to take down a well resourced mafia outfit.
No fancy score or believable Act 3, except for annoying tropes that ruin a potentially good story.
I'm still trying to figure out why this is written up as a comedy? Nobody was funny and the drama was cheap. All 3 points goes towards an interesting premise.
The philosophical monologue at the end gave me indie film vibes and should have been run through Ai for something a bit deeper. Why would a con artist who steals from elderly people be introspective and thoughtful?
The whole thing is a ball of weirdness which I ended up caring too much about, and completed watching the film :(
Little explanation is given, but we are sent on a lesson to explain how some type of social worker in the form of a court-appointed legal guardian turns into a girlpower lesbian-hitman able to take down a well resourced mafia outfit.
No fancy score or believable Act 3, except for annoying tropes that ruin a potentially good story.
I'm still trying to figure out why this is written up as a comedy? Nobody was funny and the drama was cheap. All 3 points goes towards an interesting premise.
The philosophical monologue at the end gave me indie film vibes and should have been run through Ai for something a bit deeper. Why would a con artist who steals from elderly people be introspective and thoughtful?
The whole thing is a ball of weirdness which I ended up caring too much about, and completed watching the film :(
Critics of every variety now rush to say their point of view wasn't represented in a genre film, especially when it comes to war. But what do we actually expect from film today? Is it still about entertainment, or is it now meant to educate, moralize, or correct history?
In Warfare, Ray Mendoza offers a stripped-back, immersive experience-documentary-style with minimal narrative-intended to plunge us into the horror of jungle-based, guerrilla-style combat. It does this well in sensory terms: the mud, the panic, the screams. But the film doesn't try to represent every element of warfare, nor should it be expected to. Still, the question remains: does that limitation make its storytelling any less valid?
Cultures have always told war stories for very specific reasons: legacy, national identity, and sometimes, to justify sacrifice. The antiwar narrative is a valid one, but we should admit that it rarely offers the kind of balance with which history records battle. For every Saving Private Ryan, there's an Alamo, a Thermopylae, a Gallipoli, a Warsaw Uprising-stories of noble failure and moral endurance. They form the bedrock of patriotism, recruitment, and collective memory. Even the most intimate or critical war films can't fully escape that weight.
'Warfare' seems determined to avoid those tropes. No clear hero, no sweeping score, no high-minded rhetoric. But in avoiding myth, it sometimes lapses into monotony. The 25-minute stretch of screaming; initially jarring and provocative, eventually becomes numbing, almost annoying. Is that the point? Perhaps. But the line between visceral realism and one-dimensional storytelling gets blurred.
Mendoza's film succeeds in capturing a raw moment of combat trauma, but in doing so, it also highlights the limits of the genre itself. Can a war film still be compelling without drawing on the traditional arc of conflict, courage, and consequence? Warfare makes its case, but whether that case holds depends on what you believe a war story should be-and what you think it's for.
In Warfare, Ray Mendoza offers a stripped-back, immersive experience-documentary-style with minimal narrative-intended to plunge us into the horror of jungle-based, guerrilla-style combat. It does this well in sensory terms: the mud, the panic, the screams. But the film doesn't try to represent every element of warfare, nor should it be expected to. Still, the question remains: does that limitation make its storytelling any less valid?
Cultures have always told war stories for very specific reasons: legacy, national identity, and sometimes, to justify sacrifice. The antiwar narrative is a valid one, but we should admit that it rarely offers the kind of balance with which history records battle. For every Saving Private Ryan, there's an Alamo, a Thermopylae, a Gallipoli, a Warsaw Uprising-stories of noble failure and moral endurance. They form the bedrock of patriotism, recruitment, and collective memory. Even the most intimate or critical war films can't fully escape that weight.
'Warfare' seems determined to avoid those tropes. No clear hero, no sweeping score, no high-minded rhetoric. But in avoiding myth, it sometimes lapses into monotony. The 25-minute stretch of screaming; initially jarring and provocative, eventually becomes numbing, almost annoying. Is that the point? Perhaps. But the line between visceral realism and one-dimensional storytelling gets blurred.
Mendoza's film succeeds in capturing a raw moment of combat trauma, but in doing so, it also highlights the limits of the genre itself. Can a war film still be compelling without drawing on the traditional arc of conflict, courage, and consequence? Warfare makes its case, but whether that case holds depends on what you believe a war story should be-and what you think it's for.
A great surprise, suspense, light hearted drama, romance, business, sardonicism and satisfying plot twists.
A justice-filled story of an art history major who knows her stuff and finds her people. That there is enough caption to give this a shot.
Very few named actors makes it risky but even more pleasing when you see the casting stick the landing. The stereotypes can come off over the top but they serve a purpose to tell the story well.
For those that enjoy the fine arts you'll fantasize about the predicament that young Anna finds herself in and when you add a plot B love story then its a big fat win.
So many lower budget films flot, even more romcoms that feel like they have been done to death, so to find something that works is a great feeling.
A justice-filled story of an art history major who knows her stuff and finds her people. That there is enough caption to give this a shot.
Very few named actors makes it risky but even more pleasing when you see the casting stick the landing. The stereotypes can come off over the top but they serve a purpose to tell the story well.
For those that enjoy the fine arts you'll fantasize about the predicament that young Anna finds herself in and when you add a plot B love story then its a big fat win.
So many lower budget films flot, even more romcoms that feel like they have been done to death, so to find something that works is a great feeling.